[Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

The first thirteen years of Tory rule, the average percentage against GDP was thirty-six point three, the thirteen years of Labour it was thirty-five point three.

But it seems like you're just cherry-picking the data. And the data cannot be interpreted without taking the economic circumstances at the time into consideration.

This is what I hate so much about UK politics, and why I love the fact that we have this unlikely coalition now. UK politics revolves around slagging off the other party to gain support for your own. In a way, it would be funny, if it weren't so bloody inconstructive (if that's a word). Get a grip, get some perspective, and start working for the country rather than your party. This is something that, given the election result, Cameron and Clegg were forced to accept. Let's hope they recognise that it's actually a really good way to do politics.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

A self-employed person does not claim anything back, because they haven't paid anything to HMRC, before they calculate their taxable profit at the end of their accounting period. Any mileage allowances are added to expenditure, therefore reducing the taxable profits, I have not said that someone cannot use a mileage allowance. I think that you are the one who is confused and are trying to do a bit of wriggling.

As far as VAT is concerned, you may have noticed that I wrote "standard rate." So, no misunderstanding at all then, eh.

Oh for pete's sake
You really are mandleson aren't you?
You are claiming expenses by claiming mileage, the tax man dictates what you are allowed to claim and what you can't (such as "entertainment").
Everyone I know of refers to it as claiming expenses back off the tax man, because you are, you declare your expenses to the tax man and he approves them or not.
That you don't actually hand all the money over then get it back is by the by.
You still don't seem to understand the bit about income tax being reduced when VAT went up.

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Oh for pete's sake
You really are mandleson aren't you?
You are claiming expenses by claiming mileage, the tax man dictates what you are allowed to claim and what you can't (such as "entertainment").
Everyone I know of refers to it as claiming expenses back off the tax man, because you are, you declare your expenses to the tax man and he approves them or not.
That you don't actually hand all the money over then get it back is by the by.
You still don't seem to understand the bit about income tax being reduced when VAT went up.

But, have you now realised that one cannot "claim" a "net" of four thousand pounds based on a calculation of forty pence per mile?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

But, have you now realised that one cannot "claim" a "net" of four thousand pounds based on a calculation of forty pence per mile?

Ah I see what you've done, you've purposely (well, I hope you did it on purpose) misunderstood the word "net" as "nett" rather than how it was used which was just "net"

Should you not have purposely misunderstood, then appologies. Similar statements such as "net yourself a bargain at the sales" must also cause you consternation.

[Flyboy]

So, when you wrote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers
As a contractor you can claim back £0.40 per mile, netting you well over £4K from the tax man.

You meant what exactly? Because "netting" from the taxman, means that is what you will get. One cannot not get four thousand pounds from the taxman, by claiming forty pence per mile, no matter how much you try.

[punky]

Originally Posted by danielf

But it seems like you're just cherry-picking the data. And the data cannot be interpreted without taking the economic circumstances at the time into consideration.

This is what I hate so much about UK politics, and why I love the fact that we have this unlikely coalition now. UK politics revolves around slagging off the other party to gain support for your own. In a way, it would be funny, if it weren't so bloody inconstructive (if that's a word). Get a grip, get some perspective, and start working for the country rather than your party. This is something that, given the election result, Cameron and Clegg were forced to accept. Let's hope they recognise that it's actually a really good way to do politics.

^ This. Wish I could rep you for it.

I can see some of us have got bogged down in a row about expenses.With all due respect the topic isn't about petrol/diesel bills or claiming expenses.It's about the overall effects of the present Coalition.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Yes, let's compare an administration that inherited double-digit inflation, a nice fat recession (2.36% drop in GDP in Q3 1979), and militant trade unions with one that inherited a stable, surplus running economy shall we?

Makes it impossible to compare the tax take, which is the stat you are looking at. The actual tax rates, no idea of, however it would probably be somewhat fairer to take the Tory numbers a bit later on once they'd had a while to work on the economy.

This is interesting reading.

Oh here's a thought for you Flyboy, despite the crap the Tories inherited they still managed better average GDP growth than Labour.

Thought number 2 - Brown removed the tax credit on share dividends, increasing the size of or causing pension deficits within companies, and causing people to invest in property instead of standard pension funds - cost to pension funds of this by the way is guesstimated at upwards of 100bln. People investing in property caused a housing bubble, more demand for similar supply. As part of satiating this demand and due to the ever increasing house prices lenders such as Northern Rock began to offer riskier and riskier mortgages on the assumption that the non-stop and rapid rises in house prices would continue.

You see where I'm going with this. That smash and grab on pension funds caused incalculable damage to our economy. From people not being able to afford homes due to the housing bubble through to mortgage backed debt bringing down lenders through to people using their homes as cashpoints, fuelling their consumption with debt while bankers fuel the economy from their end gambling away the liquidity the housing market generated.

This was the basis of a good part of Labour's economic growth, public sector employment was responsible for a good part of jobs growth.

One thing you really, surely, honestly aren't going to do is try and say that Labour's policies were good for the economy?

Yes and whilst Brown's policies were resulting in rampant house price inflation which created an unsustainable boom (in spite of what Brown was saying about having broken the cycle of boom and bust), they were still banging on about how awful it was that people couldn't afford homes. Of course, some people who owned property and didn't overstretch themselves with debt did rather nicely out of Brown's 'prudence'. I dare say they'll have voted for the guy in large numbers....

The truth is that Brown was quite happy to see the economy grow by hook or by crook. Sadly it was more by 'crook' and look where that got us...

[Flyboy]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Yes, let's compare an administration that inherited double-digit inflation, a nice fat recession (2.36% drop in GDP in Q3 1979), and militant trade unions with one that inherited a stable, surplus running economy shall we?

Makes it impossible to compare the tax take, which is the stat you are looking at. The actual tax rates, no idea of, however it would probably be somewhat fairer to take the Tory numbers a bit later on once they'd had a while to work on the economy.

This is interesting reading.

Oh here's a thought for you Flyboy, despite the crap the Tories inherited they still managed better average GDP growth than Labour.

Had a look for the figures myself:

UK GDP since 1948

I couldn't spot a recession in nineteen seventy-nine, in fact, net growth for that year was just over two per cent. I thought that was right, but had to double check, just in case the memory was playing tricks.

What method are you using to theorise the GDP growth comparisons?

[keepitreel]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

cam and sam are at buck house

cam and sam = scaamm!!

Originally Posted by keepitreel

cam and sam = scaamm!!

Ooh we could play this game all night...

If David Miliband wins the contest for Labour leadership - he is in trouble anagram wise...

In a few words - David Miliband spells "bad invalid dim"

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Had a look for the figures myself:

UK GDP since 1948

I couldn't spot a recession in nineteen seventy-nine, in fact, net growth for that year was just over two per cent. I thought that was right, but had to double check, just in case the memory was playing tricks.

What method are you using to theorise the GDP growth comparisons?

GDP dropped 2.36% in Q3 1979 then after a single quarter in positive territory dropped into official recession in 1980, before any Tory policies would have had any chance to take significant effect, but I'm sure you read my post and the statistics closely rather than picking out the bits you liked and disliked to try and make your point

I'm not theorising anything by the way, I'm using inflation adjusted GDP figures and the science and art of mathematics. Please feel free to do the calculations yourself if you think you can manage to put aside partisanship for long enough to not try and find some way to skew them to fit your own prejudices.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Flyboy

Had a look for the figures myself:

UK GDP since 1948

I couldn't spot a recession in nineteen seventy-nine, in fact, net growth for that year was just over two per cent. I thought that was right, but had to double check, just in case the memory was playing tricks.

What method are you using to theorise the GDP growth comparisons?

obviously not the same mathemagic your using -is it the Brown equation your employing
divide reality by six

[papa smurf]

meanwhile back on planet earth

THE government last night accused Labour of pursuing a “scorched earth policy” before the general election, leaving behind billions of pounds of previously hidden spending commitments.

The newly discovered Whitehall “black holes” could force even more severe public spending cuts, or higher tax rises, ministers fear.

“There are some worrying early signs that numbers left by the outgoing government may not add up,” said Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister.

David Willetts, the universities minister, claimed that Labour had left behind “not so much an in-tray as a minefield”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7127819.ece

[Osem]

Originally Posted by papa smurf

meanwhile back on planet earth

THE government last night accused Labour of pursuing a “scorched earth policy” before the general election, leaving behind billions of pounds of previously hidden spending commitments.

The newly discovered Whitehall “black holes” could force even more severe public spending cuts, or higher tax rises, ministers fear.

“There are some worrying early signs that numbers left by the outgoing government may not add up,” said Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister.

David Willetts, the universities minister, claimed that Labour had left behind “not so much an in-tray as a minefield”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7127819.ece

Doesn't surprise me at all! The deliberate 'policy' of a shambolic government in terminal decline or just a sign of their utter ineptitude I wonder??.... Perhaps both. Hopefully it'll become clear in due course and those remaining New Labour supporters will see just how badly things really were whilst Brown and his cohorts were trying to deflect blame and criticism onto people who hadn't been in power and had no role in the decisions that were made.

---------- Post added at 09:49 ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

[/COLOR]

obviously not the same mathemagic your using -is it the Brown equation your employing
divide reality by six

Now Brown's got a bit more time on his hands and is going to devote himself to 'good causes', I hear he's considering marketing his 'Brown Formula' to governments, organisations, individuals etc. who're mired in debt and on the verge of bankruptcy but don't want to feel bad about it. The detail is highly complex of course but in simple terms when you enter all the relevant financial data all the minus signs (for costs, debts, liabilities etc.) are changed to plus signs and all the income/revenue figures are quadrupled....